How could anyone not approve of Bourque or the trade?
Bourque, Fucale, and Holland for Mini Mike Cammaleri....
Bourque, Fucale, and Holland for Mini Mike Cammaleri....
Do you approve of Rene Bourque?
- Thread starter DAChampion
- Start date
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
- Jun 21, 2010
- 5,999
- 141
He very well could, but anyone comparing the deals would be stupid, if traded now, Cammy is only signed for this year, team bring him in doesn't have to worry about having his contract on the books the year after, when the Habs traded him Cammy had 2+ years on his deal and owed more than 14M in real dollars.
And lol at ppl saying he should of gotten us a first round pick, we ended up getting a 34th pick along with Bourque and Holland, any team that would have traded given a first for Cammy would have been a serious playoff team so that pick would be 25+ and unlikely to also give you a player like Bourque with that.
Mike Mike Caron
Registered User
- Aug 29, 2010
- 7,471
- 1,247
René Bourque is on pace for 26 goals, if he plays in the PO like did last season i'll be a happy camper. Well worth his salary.
dackelljuneaubulis02
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2012
- 11,561
- 6,891
I liked this trade when it happened and I'm just loving it now.
I'm even surprised at how decent Holland looks on a 4th line. By rights, he shouldn't be doing well there at all. So far with only one year of pro hockey under his belt he's shown to be a solid call up. That's more than fine with me. I hope he's got more room to improve because he could turn into something. Faster or stronger or both should do the trick.
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
Ok.
I would change my vote at this point. He's picking it up this year, it seems.
Like yesterday's GWG.
I would change my vote at this point. He's picking it up this year, it seems.
Like yesterday's GWG.
Scintillating10
Registered User
That was a great trade for Montreal. Fucale is a bluechip goalie, Bourque solid 3rd liner, Holland looks to be a player. Cammy had turned into a cancer here and was huge caphit.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,215
- 45,080
Bourque was not considered an asset. He was an albatross that Calgary wanted to be rid of. Go look at Hrudey's two rants against the guy and specifically where he laughs that anyone would be interested in trading for him... These happen before he's traded to us.
He was basically their version of DD.
Last edited:
I'll be surprised if he gets more than 30 points this season. He's not consistent or durable enough to be able to play full season. I think that's one of the reasons he avoids physical play. Decent 3rd liner overall.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,050
- 5,543
He was more like their version of Andrei Kostitsyn. An off and on 25 goal scorer who plays physical at times. They both were making a little over 3m too. And since you've claimed multiple times that Kostitsyn was worth a 1st round pick, then shouldn't that be Bourque's value as well?
If we go by rants by media personalities Subban was a cancer who was hated by his teammates. At the time of the trade Bourque was on pace for 28 goals, and 100 hits in what way is that comparable to Desharnais?
If I was building the ideal team Bourque wouldn't be on it. But you'll never have the perfect team and on this team Bourque brings something few others do.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,215
- 45,080
I don't think Hrudey's an idiot, I'm surprised you think he is.
And Bourque wasn't a guy they wanted around. They signed a bad deal with him and were looking for takers. This was a problem child going the other way.
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
- Jun 21, 2010
- 5,999
- 141
If Bourque was their DD what was Cammy to us, Gomez 2.0?
Bourque actually has more goals at the time of the trade, and aside for the remainder of that season where the whole team sucked, Bourque has been decent.
Cammy is the better player but not at twice the amount of money. The flames have been looking to move Cammy as part of their rebuild and it seems like Cammy has said he would welcome a trade out of Calgary yet they haven't been able to move him because of his contract, and will probably only be able to do us near the trade deadline where teams won't be taking on a part of his contract.
dukeofjive
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,215
- 45,080
Look at the context here.
At the time Calgary was life and death for a playoff spot with their crazy owners trying to get 8th. They had just signed (what they considered to be an albatross deal) with Bourque for four years and wanted to get rid of him. Cammy had had previous success there. Moreover, Bourque was suspended at the time of the trade...
We did them a big favour all the way around and Cammy has been twice as productive - before and after - with a shorter deal.
And - we'll never know what else we could've got because we traded the guy in the middle of a divisional game (that was supposedly must win) less than 24 hours after his comments.
All this and folks still say that we got max value for him? Sorry but it just doesn't add up. Admit it, it was a kneejerk reactionary move. If we're going to take back Bourque there's no way we should be looking at a 2nd. I don't care how you slice it. And again - WAIT for a better deal if Calgary doesn't pony one up. There's no way around this.
It's great that Fucale was still around. Great that it looks like it will work out in the long run. But yes, our GM made the trade out of a combination of desperation and embarrassment and yes we could've done better. Hell, GMs (anonymously) came out and told the analysts that they would've made a play for the guy if they knew he was on the market. Yeah it was probably Burke but still...
Bourque actually has a very good contract for a guy with size who can usually pot around 25 a year.
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
- Jun 21, 2010
- 5,999
- 141
I personally don't like to get into his speculation thing because most of it is not fact, might be true but not for sure, example Feaster at time of the deal himself said the deal was in the works for 2months, and that GM your talking about, I bet you are referring to what Leburn said where he said that a GM told him he don't know Cammy was really being shopped but he had no interest in him.
All speculation based on nothing, saying the Flames Bourque wanted to get rid of Bourque contract is just like saying Mtl was looking to trying to get rid of Cammy contract.
For me trading Cammy and ending up with Bourque Fucule and Holland is a great deal.
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
- Jun 21, 2010
- 5,999
- 141
Unlike Cammy who the flames seem to can't trade yet, might have to wait until the deadline, his actually pay is 1M dollar higher than his 6M cap hit, I believe starting next year Bourque makes only 2.5M in real dollars, very moveable
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,215
- 45,080
Just to be clear, I don't think he's bad. But he should probably be on the 3rd line.
Its not based on nothing. I've given solid arguments for this. Yes it's speculative. But unfortunately our GM decided to make the deal less than 24 hours after the comments so we'll never know what we could've gotten (and that's NOT speculative.)
Sure. In a binary situation (yes or no) knowing what we know NOW, I'd make that trade. That doesn't mean it was a good trade at the time. Same as if we trade Subban today for a 99th overall draft pick. Its a terrible trade. Even if that pick turns into Gretzky - still a bad trade that worked out.
On most NHL teams he is a 2nd liner, if he'son your 3rd line you are probably a top 5-6 team.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,215
- 45,080
We're not a top five team and he belongs on our third line.
He's a good 3rd liner and that's where he belongs. If he's on your first two you've got issues. We're not exactly the greatest team and I think he belongs on the 3rd with us and Bournival is a better choice. The guy wastes all kinds of scoring chances.
He's not a bad player. He's got speed, powerful shot, size... but no hockey sense.
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2003
- 1,618
- 1
Dominator13
Registered User
Well, he's about to be part of the best 3rd line in the whole league when Pacioretty returns...
Finished 4th last year and would be top 5-6 if not missing 5-6 guys for most of the last 2 weeks. A lot of teams have guys that don't score 20 on their 2nd line let alone 25(pace).
Other than the 38 games here his 1st year he's been at or near a 25 goal pace every year since 08-09.
08-09 21 in 58 games (29.7)
09-10 27 in 73 games(30.3)
10-11 27 in 80 games(27.67)
11-12 13 in 38 before the trade(28)
12-13 7 in 27 games(21.3)
13-14 4 in 13 games(25.2)
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,215
- 45,080
In 2012 he was on pace for 10 goals with us over an 82 game season. 19 over the season including Calgary.
In 2013 he was on pace for 21.
That was with our best center.
Again, he's not bad. But he's better suited to the 3rd line.
Last edited:
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
- Jun 21, 2010
- 5,999
- 141
It might seem like it, and I would think the same way, but then what do you make of Jay Feaster's comment that the deal was in the making for 2 months? Why would Feaster try to help Gauthier look "not depressed", specially since everyone says that no other GM's like Gauthier (bunch of speculative stuff again)...
Like I said speculating that he would have gotten more if he wanted, really isn't much of anything for me. For me if you get a first round pick for Cammy at the time, its a late pick 25-30, and probaly for that year, and for sure not a player like Bourque with it.
Now you can not like Bourque, and say he sucks, and that is your reason for not like the trade, but no team is trading you a a late first and a big body player that is coming of back to back 27 goals seasons, and was on pace for a little more than that.
